Cricket: Big three are batting on a sticky wicket

Matches between New Zealand and India could become a rarity. Photo / Getty Images

As New Zealand battle India on the field, world cricket is considering a boardroom proposal that could see smaller countries overlooked by world powers like India. Sports editor Paul Lewis looks at the pros and cons of the new order.

Sometimes it seems there has never been a sport capable of soiling its own nest as badly as cricket.

Now that a little of the dust has settled on the plans by India, England and Australia (in that order) to map out a radical reformation of world cricket, it is possible to contemplate a future that might not be as disastrous as it first seemed. But world cricket, fresh from the credibility-sinking, money-led romance with disgraced financier Allen Stanford, is now moving towards a new order which may damage the very game it seeks, allegedly, to protect.

In this country, we have had the reasoned tones of Martin Snedden putting the brakes on the most panicky stuff - pointing out that negotiation is the only way and warning against leaping to conclusions that what is being proposed is bad for the world game and for New Zealand. Then we hear India, cricket's bankers, threatening to boycott ICC events unless the measure to re-jig cricket's world body is passed.

The proposal by the "big three" (actually a "big one" with a couple of remoras sucking fast to the belly of the shark of India) claims it wants to ensure test cricket remains the primary form of the game.

Now there's a Tui billboard for you. What they mean is that test cricket will remain the primary form of the game for the big three. Everybody else? Maybe not so much.

Although it has been cloaked in warm concern for the global game, self-interest is really the primary form of the proposal.

If you read what cricket writers from the 'big three' countries are saying after being led to the public relations trough by the powers of the game, their major concern is not for the smaller cricket powers but that the International Cricket Council isn't working; that it does not provide the leadership the game needs and that powerhouse India (which provides 80 per cent of the world's cricket revenues) needs to be corralled into a world order.

True, but will the new way work any better?

The big worry about the big three is in the politics inherent in the proposed change. If this is such a great move for test cricket, why hasn't South Africa - currently one of the best test sides on the planet and even, arguably, the best - been included? Answer: Because their boss, Haroon Lorgat, is at odds with India's all-powerful BCCI and they have been set aside like an empty gin bottle.

If such a concerned, caring move for the betterment of the game is made without including one of the major players and because of petty politics, what hope is there for success long term and, more specifically, for anyone who isn't India, England or Australia?

But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. On the surface, the proposal (to be addressed at an ICC meeting in Dubai on Tuesday) appears not to alter things overmuch.

That could be the caramel-toned language of political expediency (say A now, do B when the power is won) - but the intention is to split test cricket into two divisions of eight. Every four years, the bottom team of the first division would play off against the top team of the second division over a two-game series, home and away, to decide promotion-relegation.

Except India, England and Australia can't be relegated.

That's because the big three hold the power when it comes to the US$2 billion TV rights - and TV won't pay to watch second division fodder. So the big three have inoculated themselves against relegation while leaving all the other cricket nations exposed to the buzzing mosquitoes of competition. They sweeten this dead rat with the perfume of money. In the new TV deals, more money will accrue and more will find its way to the pockets of the little guys - so, more money, less power.

It is not a structure which gives total confidence that the big three will always act as benign dictators. The flip side of test cricket as the "primary form" of the game is that, according to the big three, too much test cricket in other countries takes place before diminutive crowds and is not commercially viable.

Uh-oh. To some, that means more tests for and between England, India and Australia and bugger everyone else - though it must be pointed out that England and Australia (India have been suspiciously quiet on this topic) have undertaken to play all the other top eight nations in at least three tests in a four-year cycle.

In the eight years back to 2005, in New Zealand's 29 home and away series against all nations, England have played NZ in four test series, India four (as have the West Indies and South Africa) and Australia only twice - the least of any country except Pakistan who have not hosted tours for some time because of the political situation.

In two of the new four-year cycles proposed, England and Australia would thus play New Zealand in two series each - so we might score more tests against Australia while England and India may play New Zealand less.

But, even if the intent of the big three is to foster world cricket, the smaller nations are at risk like a baby taken into a parent's bed - crushed when the well-intentioned parent rolls on to them. Under the proposal, no nation is compelled to make a tour if it doesn't want to. Translation: the big boys don't have to play with the little kids. Even if they do, will we get "B" teams as the top teams keep their powder dry for the bouts against the "elite"?

The PR offensive which has accompanied the England-Australia-India move has had journalists who should know better using New Zealand as a barometer for change. London's Daily Telegraph: ... "cricket fans in these other countries do not seem to have the appetite for test cricket that Australia, England and - arguably - India and South Africa still have for it. In all honesty, nations like New Zealand have been concentrating their limited resources on the one-day formats for a long time anyway ... scheduling ODIs or T20s rather than tests on traditional cricket dates like Boxing Day. This is sad, of course, but the tide seems to be irreversible." The Guardian: "So, the debate is under way. New Zealand have come out in cautious support ..."

What New Zealand is doing is sending the skilled Snedden to gather what crumbs of comfort are available from the dining table of the big three - and he is likely minding his Ps and Qs so he doesn't irritate them.

The proposal is likely to go through. It needs eight of the 10 full members (England, Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and New Zealand) to approve it.

Pakistan has signalled discontent but could be easily swayed by the Indians doing a deal that brings them more on the international map than in recent times.

Sri Lanka is propped up by Indian money. The West Indies have usually followed the Indian lead and Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are unlikely to bump the money trolley. That, in theory anyway, leaves South Africa alone, possibly supported by Pakistan and potentially New Zealand with a casting vote.

If successful, the move could eventually prove the critics right; New Zealand cricket could have its horizons trimmed to more one-dayers and T20s, with a leaner diet of tests - the primary form of the game.

But too many clashes between the big boys can also be self-defeating; the recent back-to-back Ashes series showed how even a great event can turn to tedium if it is overdone.

Sport, like everything else, changes over time. Cricket now is nothing like cricket even 50 years ago and it will continue to evolve. But if the game ends up concentrating tests among the big boys and smaller countries exist more on a money-motivated diet of ODIs and soulless T20s (an object lesson in how more can be less), the game will lose its spiritual centre and at least one fan.

Me.